3 ms·

I think you might find it interesting to look at counterarguments to that as it's been addressed quite a bit. There's this sometimes cited intro [1] but I think

I think you might find it interesting to look at counterarguments to that as it's been addressed quite a bit. There's this sometimes cited intro [1] but I think [2] is a lot better with a literature review and history. Then there's Douglas Hofstadter's famous "You've Come a Long Way, Guys!" which you can probably find using sci-hub or something. 1. https://ovop.pw/whysexistlanguagematters.pdf https://ovop.pw/whysexistlanguagematters.pdf 2. https://cogsci.indiana.edu/pub/KerryBodine-CmonGuys.pdf https://cogsci.indiana.edu/pub/KerryBodine-CmonGuys.pdf

skohan 6y ago
I understand these arguments, but I can't help thinking that the use of the term "guys" is really a non-issue. As someone who's been living as an expat for the past 6 years, I speak 3 languages decently and another one poorly. If there is anything this has convinced me of, it's that languages in general don't make a lot of sense, and the meaning of words is purely defined by how they are used. By that definition, "guys", when used to refer to a group of people, has always been a genderless term. In fact, growing up in a progressive town in the midwest, if I heard someone use the term "y'all" instead of "you guys", it would signal to me that they might not be that good on gender issues (due to an unjustified stereotype we had about southern people). I think you can pick it apart, and find complex logical reasons why "guys" might be gendered in certain circumstances, but I think in 99% of cases when it's used, people are able to understand with complete clarity whether it's a gendered or genderless usage of the term. And also I don't think it's going anywhere, because it's an incredibly useful term which has the right level of generality and casualness for a great many situations.
- guerrilla 6y ago
  If you read the linked papers then you'll see that the argument isn't whether it can be genderless. That's not disputed since it's used that way effectively. It's about what the word evokes regardless of which meaning is meant and whether or not that is harmful to women. Connotation vs. denotation and the real world effects of the former.
  - skohan 6y ago
    Yes and my argument would be that in 99% of cases where this is used in the real world in a genderless context, there is no gendered evocation or connotation with the word. It simply means a group of people, and there is no harmful effect of using this term. I believe you have to dig really deep and go through some mental gymnastics to find evidence of harm here. I don't fault the authors of these papers for exploring the potential issues with the term, but I believe this is a case where the academic reading is out of step with the reality of the situation.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - umanwizard 6y ago
      You are absolutely right. In the dialect of colloquial American English that I grew up speaking, bare “you” can only be singular, and the default plural 2nd person pronoun is “you guys”. Telling us not to use it because of long-forgotten etymology would be as absurd as telling us not to use the word “they” because it’s a product of Norse imperialism.

skohan 6y ago

I understand these arguments, but I can't help thinking that the use of the term "guys" is really a non-issue. As someone who's been living as an expat for the past 6 years, I speak 3 languages decently and another one poorly. If there is anything this has convinced me of, it's that languages in general don't make a lot of sense, and the meaning of words is purely defined by how they are used. By that definition, "guys", when used to refer to a group of people, has always been a genderless term. In fact, growing up in a progressive town in the midwest, if I heard someone use the term "y'all" instead of "you guys", it would signal to me that they might not be that good on gender issues (due to an unjustified stereotype we had about southern people). I think you can pick it apart, and find complex logical reasons why "guys" might be gendered in certain circumstances, but I think in 99% of cases when it's used, people are able to understand with complete clarity whether it's a gendered or genderless usage of the term. And also I don't think it's going anywhere, because it's an incredibly useful term which has the right level of generality and casualness for a great many situations.

guerrilla 6y ago
If you read the linked papers then you'll see that the argument isn't whether it can be genderless. That's not disputed since it's used that way effectively. It's about what the word evokes regardless of which meaning is meant and whether or not that is harmful to women. Connotation vs. denotation and the real world effects of the former.
- skohan 6y ago
  Yes and my argument would be that in 99% of cases where this is used in the real world in a genderless context, there is no gendered evocation or connotation with the word. It simply means a group of people, and there is no harmful effect of using this term. I believe you have to dig really deep and go through some mental gymnastics to find evidence of harm here. I don't fault the authors of these papers for exploring the potential issues with the term, but I believe this is a case where the academic reading is out of step with the reality of the situation.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - umanwizard 6y ago
    You are absolutely right. In the dialect of colloquial American English that I grew up speaking, bare “you” can only be singular, and the default plural 2nd person pronoun is “you guys”. Telling us not to use it because of long-forgotten etymology would be as absurd as telling us not to use the word “they” because it’s a product of Norse imperialism.